dungeonsfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Tarkisflux
Hi, welcome to Dungeons and Dragons Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the User talk:Surgo page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Surgo (Talk) 04:32, August 26, 2009 Adoption Hi Tarkisflux, I’ve been an admin of dnd: wikia before it merged with dungeons: (that makes it 2006–2010), and I just wanted to say I’d be happy to take care of what’s left of it after your move to dnd-wiki.org is completed. (Cause if I read it correctly, all the current admins are moving out, and I don’t want to see this baby on adoption list again). I won’t be too active (got my hands full with RPG Wikia and SB Wiki already anyway), but I will pick up the merging process where you left it, and well, it’s better than having nobody take care of it at all. It sucks that you’re leaving by the way, it’s almost as bad as the wikia new look, haha! But hey, at least it’s cool that you didn’t go back to dandwiki.com. --Radaghast Kary 10:47, February 7, 2011 (UTC) :Congratulations Radaghast Kary! You've been promoted to admin. You are now the most active admin on the wiki. :Actual concerns about the wiki going forward that I have: :*Author / page integrity. I don't know if you knew, but we made kinda a big deal about the name on an a page and not messing with the intent of their work. If the wiki isn't going to keep that going forward because the community doesn't want it, and it is kinda a pain that requires a bit of eye watching to keep up actually, I'd prefer to remove the author names from the article or radically alter the author template to indicate different stuff. Or even just remove the homebrew material where requested. All we have are our names out here, and there was a strong attempt to keep as much weight to those as possible that I don't want to see lost. :*Other stuff that I'll remember later. That was the big one actually. :Bureaucrat promo pending me feeling like it, which is mostly me wanting to see how things play out before I commit that change. I'd like to see things here actually go somewhere, instead of just circle the drain in a caretaker fashion, but that sorta requires a community to pop in... - TarkisFlux 05:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :: Thanks! Well, I agree on the author/page issue completely — let's say that if there is an active contributor who authored some content, it is actually better to remove it if (s)he migrated, because otherwise there would be two copies, one of which never gets updated. If the content is never changed (i.e., for SRD material or for some folks that came at some point to submit something and left to never be seen again), then it's okay to keep both copies up and running or even leave only one here if you're too unsure about how the author feels about the migration. Bureaucrat privileges are not crucial at all: if there will be an active someone, I can always ask you again (or Angela if you drop below 0 HP). --Radaghast Kary 16:11, February 11, 2011 (UTC) :::Since we were also pretty strict about not keeping incomplete homebrew articles here there shouldn't be a lot of material in the main namespace that needs updates (in progress projects are a different story). I think it's rather unlikely that existing material will diverge significantly across the fork, and it should be usable here even if it does. So I don't think there's a strong reason to purge articles of users who have moved (which is most users actually afaict), but you certainly can if you want to. Probably better to only delete on author request. It might even work better to ask Angela to un-merge the wikis (if that's even possible) and just keep up dnd.wikia.com as an encyclopedic resource instead of the merge plan without an active homebrewer base. The whole merge plan did sort of fall apart here because of the fork. :::And I'm basically hanging on at 0 hp. I check in here every few days to revert egregious stuff and check my talk, but I don't really enforce the policies we decided on or do much else because there's no active community here at present to do it for. I'll be around until it gets adopted and things move on or until I rewrite the author template to indicate the lack of current author oversight though. I'm rather invested in that aspect of the wiki actually; I don't care if my CC-BY-SA stuff is in places I'm not watching, I just care if my name is plastered on other people's changes. - TarkisFlux 19:48, February 12, 2011 (UTC) Is this normal? Talk:Gold Piece Add topic • Edit • History • Rename 9,708pages on this wiki Back to page Reason for Edit Edit I changed back the following edit: 1 gp = 10 sp = 50 cp = 2 ep = 1/5 pp (meaning 5 gp = 1 platinum piece) source: page 34 3rd ed. Dec 1979 "the blue book" For the following reasons: 1. The 3rd ed. "blue book" might (I don't have access to it) be stating that 1 Electrum Piece = 50 Cooper Pieces. 2. My entry was factually correct (1 gp = 10 sp = 100 cp) in the Moldvay edition IF the blue book entry is indeed correct, please ADD it to the entry without removing the other one; both would be correct for their respective editions. Any discussion, keep it in the Talk Page. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 13:11, October 9, 2012 (UTC) I agree. Will you take care of adding the Holmes "blue book" edition information? ````My-13th-B-Day I don't have that particular edition, so I cannot confirm the veracity of the information. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 21:38, October 9, 2012 (UTC) What proof do you need from me, to confirm the veracity? I will fax/email photocopies/scans of the D&D set I have owned for the last 32 years, if need be, to any email address you request! ````My-13th-B-Day Take it easy: it's not that I'm doubting your word; my doubts are with the interpretation of what is notoriously ambiguous writing. There is no need for faxing, just type exactly what it says. For example, 4th ed. pp. B47 states: The value of each type of coin, and the rate of exchange between the coins, is as follows: 10 copper pieces (cp) = 1 silver piece 10 silver pieces (sp) = 1 gold piece 2 electrum pieces (ep) = 1 gold piece 5 gold pieces (gp) = 1 platinum piece (pp) 100 cp = 10 sp = 2 ep = 1 gp = 1/5 pp I want to make sure that there is indeed a difference between editions and that it is not a misinterpretation of something like "50 cp = 1 ep". --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 14:27, October 10, 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your diplomatic words, but there is no confusion! Please believe me, or allow me to prove my data with a photocopy! Please help me understand the difference between my original edit, and your need to "make sure?" Nothing has changed, since this edit string started. Please restore my original edit, with your LATER Basic version information as line two. ````My-13th-B-Day Im a First edition AD&D 'Purist' and i do noy know how 3.5 and 4e works, and i can't really help with my collection of 1st edition books, tell me any way i could help please. Thanks, Mawlocgunner458 My beef has to do with first, basic, pre-1980 edition stuff. So, I do not understand your statement: "I'm a First edition AD&D 'Purist' and i do noy know how 3.5 and 4e works, and i can't really help with my collection of 1st edition books, tell me any way i could help please." Please help set a system wide standard for updating BASIC factual, information! It should not be this hard to make a simple, factual update of easily provable information, as detailed above. Yes/No? My-13th-B-Day (talk) 07:34, October 17, 2012 (UTC)My-13th-B-Day Please sanction this user, Sings-With-Spirits, for her un-reasonable edits! 02:17, October 19, 2012 (UTC)My-13th-B-Day Hey Tarkis. This is Neo. I Just joined today to help with some grammar on some of the wiki's. I'm Currently in school so I really need something to do. I'm trying to get a D&D 3.5 game started around here so I have been doing research on it as a Dungeon Master. Appreciate it if you can give me any tips at all lol --LethalNeo (talk) 14:22, October 1, 2014 (UTC)